close
close

The planned operating ban for DHL’s Boeing B777F at Brussels Airport has met with criticism and angered Brussels cargo handlers.


The planned operating ban for DHL’s Boeing B777F at Brussels Airport has met with criticism and angered Brussels cargo handlers.

  • The order banning certain aircraft models from transporting cargo at Brussels Airport at night has met with criticism.
  • Critics and opponents of the ban accused the country of damaging the economy and saying that the use of other aircraft would lead to more noise pollution.
  • DHL is facing headwinds over its operations at Belgium’s largest airport, particularly its use of Boeing 777 aircraft to transport large cargoes.
  • In response, DHL angered cargo handlers in the city over the operating ban on the Boeing B777.

The proposal has been met with great criticism and is seen as a political step to prevent the operation of aircraft models with higher quota number (QC) exceed a value of 8.

This move is supported by several studies and surveys that have shown that the health of thousands of people living near Brussels Airport is at risk from its activities – an issue that has been at the forefront of politics for months.

Now the order of the outgoing Belgian Transport Minister Georges Gilkinet to ban the use of DHL’s B777F at Brussels Airport has met with great opposition in the Economic Community including freight handlers at and around the airport. Georges Gilkinet said:

“It is essential to limit as much as possible the noise pollution caused by air traffic to the population over which it passes, especially during the most sensitive times of the day. Night flights must therefore be carried out using the most environmentally friendly aircraft, which in any case comply with the standards in force.”


“This is a fundamental requirement for ensuring a sustainable future for Brussels National Airport’s activities,” he added, describing the non-compliant use of large aircraft to the detriment of the quality of life of local residents as “unfair business practices.”

The debate is centered around noise pollution and the associated health damage. A ban on night flights is proposed as a solution. Since this primarily affects freight companies such as the parcel service DHL, it has caused political unrest.


  • Each aircraft type is classified and assigned a quota count (QC) value depending on the amount of noise it generates under controlled certification conditions.
  • The QC value is smaller the quieter the aircraft is; the official noise quota of the Boeing 777 used by DHL is 10.7.
  • Flying aircraft that exceed the maximum permitted noise level is a violation of international, European and Belgian law.

Outgoing Minister for the Flemish Border (the area around Brussels, including Zaventem) Ben Weyts (N-VA) stated earlier this week that Gilkinet had circulated an instruction a few days after the June elections banning these aircraft from landing or taking off at Zaventem airport and removing an exception for DHL in the rules on night flights.

“This is a slap in the face for DHL, the only company that uses the Boeing 777 for night flights,” said Weyts. “It forces the parcel company to replace the Boeings with aircraft such as the Airbus A300.”a smaller aircraft that, according to Weyts, causes 60 percent more noise pollution because it has to be loaded more fully.

According to Mr Gilkinet, DHL and Aerologic have been operating illegally for a decade, as a law introduced on 3 May 2004 requires aircraft with a noise QC over 8 would be prohibited from night operations.

The B777F, it seems, has a Quality control of 10.7Even then, an exception was made for DHL’s B777, with the integrator limiting the aircraft’s payload so that they made less noise during takeoff.

If DHL were to follow this instruction, it would have to replace its B777 freighters with A300s, which are much smaller, would have to be fully loaded and would therefore be significantly noisier than the Triple Sevens.

The Flemish regional government considers the minister’s move to be politically motivated, as the current Flemish government has been in office since the recent parliamentary elections on 9 June.

Meanwhile, members of the Liberal Open VLD Party criticized Gilkinet’s instructions to work with newly elected MP Kjell Vander Elst on the grounds that

“It is crucial for Flemish Brabant and its economy that DHL can continue to use the Boeing Triple Seven,” adding that it is “known to be the most sustainable cargo aircraft on the market.”

However, Mr Gilkinet claims that since 2021 DHL has not presented any concrete solutions to operate within the legal framework, even if the company has other, less noisy aircraft. The minister said he had already given the instruction to fully implement the legislation on July 24 last year.

The Flemish government has now proceedings have been initiated due to conflict of interestwhich refers the matter to the Consultation Committee, a body that regulates cooperation between the federal government and the regional governments. This procedure automatically postpones the implementation of the measure by 60 days.

DHL spokesman Lorenzo Van de Pol admits that Mr Gilkinet has been considering withdrawing the company’s licence for over ten years.

“If this were to be implemented, it would mean that DHL would no longer be able to operate night flights with the B777F from Brussels Airport. In this case, we would be forced to use other, less modern aircraft, which would actually mean even more inconvenience for local residents. The B777 is the most modern and quietest wide-body aircraft currently available on the world market,” he told CFG.



“In addition, I understand that the Flemish government has invoked a conflict of interest against Mr Gilkinet’s plans, which would put his instruction on hold and only discuss it in the Consultation Committee. So there are no immediate consequences for DHL operations yet.”

A press release states: Brussels Airport has stated that it also regrets Mr Gilkinet’s far-reaching proposal.

“This is happening without any consultation with the airport or the aviation industry. The European procedure for setting usage limits has also not been followed.”


“The airport, the industry and the local residents do not benefit from putting forward these kinds of extreme and unfounded proposals. They only create uncertainty, concern and polarization. They prevent sustainable and balanced solutions for the benefit of all parties involved.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *